Related Articles

This is the fifth in a series of weekly podcasts featuring Ted Yarbrough and Isaac Anderson. The podcast summarised the previous week’s announcement of the UK general election, the political situation in Europe, shaping a post-Brexit foreign policy and previewed the Commonwealth campaign to begin next week. We hope readers enjoy the Weekly Globe podcasts. You can listen to it here:

Times where articles are discussed:

0:00- Introduction

0:40 – UK General Election 2017

29:00- Guy Verhostadt and the state of European Politics- including the French Election.

2 comments

Churchill’s majestic circles is an excellent idea that should be developed further. However, I think you rather unjustly condemn nationalism, because doing so is taken to mean ‘no borders’ and disposing of the self-governing nation state, exactly the philosophy of the EU, much of the United Nations and many of the globalists, such as George Soros and Peter Sutherland – whose ideas and ambitions are extremely dangerous. My contention is that it was not nationalism that led to the two world wars but national socialism, which embodies extreme racism plus socialism plus philosophical ideas eg., supermensch and so on. The nation state was merely the vehicle and is equally capable of benign competition and co-operation.

I was also unclear what you meant by ‘close borders’. Did you mean closed, tightly controlled? If so, they were not the cause of conflict, only its symptom when regimes wish to isolate their territory from the outside world. In many cases borders are a key mechanism for settling disputes and maintaining peace, which is why they are central to the current world order today. Closed borders can also be a very necessary means of protection. Again, like nation states, they are neutral mechanisms. Making them anything else plays into the hands of those who wish to suppress or destroy the nation state, such as the EU.

With that being said, I think it is fair to say Peter that extreme nationalism did have much to do with the two world wars. The Kaiser’s Germany was not particularly racist or socialist yet it plunged Europe into war for the fatherland. Same goes for the Bosnian nationalist who shot Franz Ferdinand. Russia declared war over links to Serbs etc. Imperial Japan was also extremely nationalistic. I think it might be better to draw a line between “nationalist” and “patriotic” if that is more helpful. Nationalism is largely antagonistic (or neutral) to other nations whereas patriotism is loyal to its own country but not particularly hostile to other nations unless they threaten the country they are patriotically loyalty to.

2. Sorry for the confusion on “close borders.” I did not mean “closed” borders but rather meant close in proximity. I agree with your points that control of borders is very important.